Warsaw, Poland — At the 5th Biennial Conference on Religion and Politics, hosted by the Institute of Political Science and Public Administration at Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, international scholars gathered to examine whether the teachings of St. John Paul II still speak to the modern world.

The two-day event marked the 20th anniversary of the late pontiff’s death and reflected on the enduring relevance of his social and political thought. Ave Maria School of Law was represented by Dean John M. Czarnetzky, Professor Ligia Castaldi, and Professor Brian Scarnecchia.

Panel on the “Sacralization of Secular Politics”

During the afternoon plenary session titled “The Sacralization of Secular Politics,” Professor Brian Scarnecchia joined an international panel moderated by Professor Zbigniew Stawrowski of Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University. The keynote address was delivered by Rev. Professor Piotr Mazurkiewicz, with additional commentary from Professor Aleksander Bobko of the University of Rzeszów and Professor Tamás Nyirkos of Pázmány Péter Catholic University in Budapest.

Professor Scarnecchia’s Commentary

In his remarks, Professor Scarnecchia examined how modern liberal democracies have elevated secular ideologies to a quasi-religious status, effectively silencing religious reasoning in the name of neutrality.

He warned that when societies treat faith-based arguments as less rational than secular ones, they impose what he called a “gag order on religion.” This false neutrality, he argued, conceals a deep bias against the very moral sources that make equality and human dignity intelligible.

“Without a foundation laid in religion,” he noted, “the language of equality is very flimsy.” Drawing on Jacques Maritain’s observation that the world agrees on human rights “so long as no one asks us why,” he emphasized that only a theological understanding of the human person provides a durable basis for radical equality.

The American Context: From Friendly to Hostile Separation

Professor Scarnecchia also traced the evolution of church–state relations in the United States. He explained that Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, often cited as the origin of the “wall of separation” metaphor, was originally intended to protect religion from federal interference, not to exclude it from public life.

That understanding, he said, shifted dramatically in 1947, when Justice Hugo Black, writing for the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education, reinterpreted Jefferson’s metaphor as a “high and impregnable wall” separating religion from civil society.

Scarnecchia noted that this reinterpretation reflected both the intellectual climate of legal positivism—which separates law from morality—and the era’s lingering anti-Catholic sentiment. “The wall that Hugo Black built,” he said, “still confronts us in America. Sometimes it’s chipped away, and sometimes the mortar is put back in—but it remains a barrier between moral truth and public reason.”

A Call for Honest Neutrality

Professor Scarnecchia concluded that a truly secular state—one that is institutionally distinct from the Church—must also be free from ideological domination. If the state claims neutrality, he argued, that neutrality must extend to atheism and liberal relativism as well. “A secular state,” he said, “should separate not only from religion, but also from ideology.”